The man who ambushed a police barracks in 2014 only wanted to tell investigators where he had buried the rifles involved in the shooting, and never wanted to talk about any of the alleged crimes.

U.S. marshals, however, continued to press the man on the attack that left one officer dead, and eventually Eric Frein confessed. On Thursday, Frein's attorney argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that continuing to question his client about the ambush was a severe violation of Frein's rights under Miranda v. Arizona, which warrants a new trial.

“He told the marshals he didn't want children to find where the rifles were buried, and he said, 'I don't want to talk about any crime,'” Kingston, Pennsylvania, attorney William Ruzzo told the justices. “The officers played him like a violin. They did a good job with the interrogation, except they violated his rights.”

Several justices acknowledged early in the arguments the significance of the issue raise in the capitol appeal, and their lines of questioning focused on whether Frein's statement could be seen as a clear assertion of silence, or if it was ambiguous, since he continued to talk after showing where the rifles were buried.

“Is it one ambiguous statement, or can it be bifurcated into two statements?” Justice Max Baer asked.

Ruzzo contended that Frein clearly indicated he did not want to talk about anything involving the crimes, and could only have waived his Miranda rights if he changed custody to another law enforcement authority and had been re-Mirandized, which did not happen.

“'Scrupulously honored' means 'scrupulously honored,'” Ruzzo said, citing the 1975 case Michigan v. Mosley, which interpreted the implications of Miranda.

Frein ambushed the Blooming Grove state police barracks in September 2014, fatally shooting one officer and severely injuring another. The shooting grabbed national attention as Frein led law enforcement officials on a nearly 50-day manhunt. The 35-year-old was convicted last year of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.

The confession was included at trial, along with numerous other pieces of physical evidence linking Frein to the shooting.

Justice Kevin Dougherty cited that fact when he questioned whether the court should find that any potential Miranda violations were harmless error given the strength of the other evidence.

Although Ruzzo said “a confession can be the most damaging evidence admitted,” Pike County District Attorney Raymond Tonkin contended that, given the numerous other pieces of evidence, the confession shouldn't result in a new trial.

“If you couldn't find harmless error here, I don't know a case where you could find harmless error,” Tonkin said.

The prosecutor focused his arguments on the fact that Frein voluntarily continued to talk after he gave up the location of the weapons, and that he was clearly warned “anything” he said could and would be used against him. Tonkin also contended that Frein's assertion of silence was ambiguous.

However, both Justices Christine Donohue and David Wecht noted that Miranda clearly recognizes defendants can place limits on what topics they are willing to discuss with police.

“Apparently it's not that easy,” Donohue said. “Apparently saying that, in your view, is not an invocation of your right to silence.”